Source: Vygolov V.P. Gate temples of ancient Rus' (problems of evolution and origin). In the book: Monuments of Russian architecture and monumental art: capital and province. M., 1994. All rights reserved.
V.P. Vygolov
Gate temples of ancient Rus'
(problems of evolution and origin)
In the history of architecture of ancient Rus', a special page is made up of gate temples - one of the most interesting types of religious architecture. The main specific feature of these temples, as the name itself indicates, is their location on the gate. Typically, such buildings were built above the gates of city walls, kremlins and fortresses, monasteries, bishops' courtyards and church complexes. They are widely known in almost all eras of ancient Russian architecture - from XI V. and until the end of its development - the milestone XVII - XVIII centuries And in subsequent times, gate churches do not disappear, but continue to exist in Russian architecture of modern times for XVIII - XIX centuries and even started XX century
However, this type of religious architecture has not yet attracted much attention from researchers. As a rule, gate churches were usually considered in general sections of the history of architecture of ancient Rus', together with other types of religious monuments, or within the framework of some architectural school, the work of a certain master, as well as one or another ensemble 1 . There are no general works on this topic. Therefore, the origin and development of gate churches, the evolution of their typology and individual forms, not to mention individual, more specific issues, remain completely unexplored. Meanwhile, this type of temple is quite worthy of independent consideration. If only because it represents a unique phenomenon, characteristic only of ancient Russian architecture. In all the architecture of the Middle Ages, both eastern and western Christian countries, gate churches are not found. So this interesting phenomenon in itself, once again emphasizing the originality of the architecture of ancient Rus' and the independence of the path of its development, deserves a deeper and more thorough understanding.
In order to approach the consideration of the above problems, it is necessary, first of all, to outline the circle of those monuments that will be in our field of view, thereby presenting a general picture of the development of gate churches in individual eras and regions. Along with the monuments themselves, various written sources are important for us, especially chronicles, which make it possible to most fully characterize the most ancient eras, which did not preserve many of these temples.
So, from the very beginning of the existence of the monumental architecture of Kievan Rus, we encounter gate temples. The earliest such monument is the Church of the Annunciation, built over the main Golden Gate of the “Yaroslav City” of Kyiv shortly after its construction around 1037. 2 XI century gives us another example of such a building - the Church of Fyodor 1089-109O. at the city gates of Pereyaslavl South (Khmelnitsky) 3. Back to top X II V. refers to the Trinity Church above the Holy Gate of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, built around 1108 4
B X II V. The boundaries of the distribution of gate temples become much wider, except for South-Western Rus', covering other centers of lands and principalities that have become independent. Thus, in Vladimir in 1164, on the Golden Gate of the “New City” (1158-1164), the Church of the Deposition of the Robe 5 was built. And in 1194-1196. The gates of the Vladimir child are being erected along with the Church of Joachim and Anna above them 6.
In the XII and early XIII V. extensive construction of gate churches is carried out in Novgorod. Such buildings were erected here in 1166-1173. in the Yuryev Monastery - the Church of the Transfiguration, in 1180-1182. in the Annunciation Monastery on Gzen - the Church of the Epiphany, in 1193 in the Resurrection Monastery in Lyudinsky End - the Church of John the Merciful and in 1206 in the Arkazhsky Monastery - the Church of Simeon the Divnogorets. In 1195, the first temple was created over the gates of the Novgorod Detinets - the Church of the Deposition of the Robe, which was followed in 1233 by another - the Church of Fyodor 7.
Interrupted by the Tatar-Mongol invasion in the 1230s, all construction on most of the territory of Rus' resumed only at the turn XIII - XIV centuries At this time, four more gate churches were erected in Novgorod: in 1296 - the Resurrection, in 1297 - the Transfiguration, in 1305 - the Intercession and in 1311 - Vladimir, which crowned the fortress gates of the Detinets of the corresponding names 8.
However, in North-Eastern Rus' we find almost no XIV - XV centuries gate temples. During this vast two-hundred-year period, we know of only three such buildings: the Church of Demetrius of Thessalonica in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (second half XIV c.) 9, Church of St. Nicholas the Wonderworker (Ascension) in the Mozhaisk Kremlin (first half XV c.) 10 and the Church of the Entrance to Jerusalem in the Tver Kremlin, dating back to the reign of Boris Alexandrovich (1425-1461) 11.
Only in Novgorod did active construction of such temples continue, mostly at the end of XIV -first half XV V. At this time, five gate churches of Detinets were rebuilt here: in 1389 - the Intercession, in 1398 - the Resurrection, in 1419 (?) - the Deposition of the Robe, in 1426 - the Transfiguration of the Savior and in the 1420s - Vladimir 12. In addition, two such buildings were erected in suburban monasteries: in 1418 - the Church of Elijah the Prophet in Khutyn and in 1419 - the Church of Anthony in Vyazhishchi. Finally, Bishop Euthymius erected two similar buildings above the gates of his courtyard in Dytinets: in 1435-1436. Church of St. John Chrysostom and in 1437-1438. Church of Peter the Metropolitan 13.
In the XVI V. the picture changes sharply in the direction of a significant increase in the construction of gate churches, which has been widely carried out throughout the entire century on the vast territory of the Moscow state. Without pretending to be exhaustive, we will list only some of these buildings in relatively chronological order. Churches of St. Sergius of Radonezh were one of the first to be built at the beginning of the century in the largest monasteries near Moscow: in 1513 - in Trinity-Sergius 14, and in the first half XVI V. - in Savvino-Storozhevsky 15. Before 1518, the gate church of the Annunciation was built in the Pokrovsky Suzdal Monastery 16; the same temple in the 40s XVI V. placed over the gates of the Vozmischensky Monastery in Volokolamsk - Cyril the Wonderworker (1541) 17.
In such large monasteries as Kirillov-Belozersky and Ipatievsky Kostroma, even two such temples were built: in the first - St. John the Climacus over the Holy Gate (1569-1572) and the Transfiguration over the Vodyany (1595) 18, in the second - Fyodor Stratelates over the Holy Gates and Irene over Vodyany (both 1580-1590s) 19: In the early 1590s, gate churches were erected almost simultaneously in the Spaso-Prilutsky Monastery near Vologda - Fyodor Stratelates (1590) 20 and in the Simonov Monastery near Moscow - Spas Iosikhozhdeniye Honest Trees of the Life-Giving Cross (1591-1593) 21. Several more such temples were built at the turn XVI - XVII centuries in a number of monasteries - Solovetsky (Church of the Annunciation 1596-1600) 22, Vladychny Serpukhovsky (Church of Fyodor Aankirsky 1599) 23, Luzhetsky Mozhaisk (Church of the Transfiguration of the Frontier) XVI - XVII centuries) 24, etc.
In the XVII V. the construction of gate churches becomes even more intensive. At this time, none of the newly created monastic complexes can do without such a building. Such construction is carried out in various regions of the Russian state, starting from the capital and its environs and ending with the most remote northern outskirts. Some of the most significant ensembles, such as the Novodevichy Convent in Moscow 25 or the Borisoglebsky Convent near Rostov 26, even had two gate churches.
Close to such monasteries were large complexes of lordly and bishop's courts, which also included gate churches. The most striking example is the Rostov Kremlin - the huge ceremonial residence of the Rostov Metropolitan Jonah Sysoevich, which includes in its ensemble the gate churches of the Resurrection (c. 1670) and St. John the Evangelist (1688) 27 . More modest was the bishop's house of the Vologda ruler, which had only the Church of the Exaltation of the Cross (1687-1692) above the main entrance gate 28 -
Concluding our brief general overview of the construction of gateway temples in ancient Rus', we only emphasize that their development took place within the framework of the general evolution of the architecture of Rus' XI - XVII centuries True, the information we provide mainly relates to stone gate churches. There is much less data on the construction of such wooden temples, since they appeared in written sources in ancient times only in certain exceptional cases. These monuments themselves have not survived to this day. However, there is no doubt about their existence even in the era of pre-Mongol Rus'. This is directly evidenced by the “cut down” Church of St. John the Merciful in 1193 at the gates of the Resurrection Convent in Novgorod 29 . The above-mentioned Church of Dmitry of Thessalonica above the Holy Gate of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery of the second half was also wooden. XIV century thirty .
Based on the above overview, three main periods are clearly distinguished in the development of gate temples. The first of them covers the era of pre-Mongol Rus' ( XI - beginning of XIII c.) and is characterized by the intensity of the formation of this type of religious architecture. It is replaced by a period of sharp decline, including the second half of X III - XIV centuries, as well as the whole XV V. All of the above testifies to the identity of the general typological and compositional structure of the gate churches we are considering. Probably, the temples on the gates of Pereyaslavl South and Vladimir Detinets were the same, having only smaller overall dimensions, since the sides of the bases of their gates did not exceed 8 m in plan 39. Obviously, there was no fundamental difference between the above groups of temples in the pre-Mongol era. All of them belonged to one of the most common types of ancient Russian architecture at that time, without possessing any particular specificity.
However, in the lower, gate part of the monuments that interest us, fundamental differences between the two groups are clearly visible. It is the gates and their architecture, and not the temple, that ultimately determine the general character of the structures in question.
The gate parts of the buildings of the first group, i.e. included in the system of city walls, Detinets and Kremlins, are most clearly characterized by the Golden Gates of Kyiv and Vladimir. They are powerful tower-like rectangular volumes with a wide vaulted passage. These towers exceeded 17.5 m in length and 13 m in height, reaching a width along the facade of 10.5 m (Kyiv) and 14 m (Vladimir). Inside the arched passage (its greatest height is 12.4 m) there were six girth arches with blades on the side walls (the width of the span between them in Kyiv is 6.4 m, in Vladimir - 5.3 m). At the top of the passage, a special combat flooring was installed for additional protection of the gate, as evidenced by the nests for wooden beams remaining on the side walls. The open area at the end of the gate, also intended for defense, was surrounded by battlements placed along its edges, traditional for fortress walls and towers.
Such gates were nothing more than powerful passage towers, intended exclusively for defense and included in the system of fortress walls and earthen ramparts of cities, Kremlins and Detinets. It was these towers, tall and mighty, that formed the basis of the structures of the first group and determined their general appearance. The small temples crowning them, located in the middle of the upper battle platform, did not have any special devices or devices intended for defense. Slender and elegant, their entire appearance contrasted with the fortress architecture of the towers themselves, which were distinguished by their emphasized severity and power.
The gate parts of the considered buildings of the “city” of Pereyaslavl South and Vladimir Detinets had the same military-defensive character. Their foundations, revealed by archaeological excavations, were only slightly smaller in size. In terms of their general layout and individual details, they are very close to the Golden Gates of Kyiv and Vladimir, being also included in the system of city walls, here already made of stone. In Pereyaslavl South, these are two parallel walls 1.3 m thick or more, with a passage between them about 5 m wide. On the inner sides of the walls there are three flat blades, which were the support of the girth arches of the vault that blocked the passage. A gate that turned out to be embedded in an earlier earthen rampart X c., were not straight, but with some bend to the northwest 40
Golden Gate with the Church of the Deposition of the Robe in Vladimir. 1164
Golden Gate with the Church of the Deposition of the Robe in Vladimir. 1164 According to the plan of N. von Berk and A. Gusev 1779
In the Vladimir Detinets, the gate formed an almost square tower measuring 12 x 12.5 m, consisting of two powerful pylons (western - 4 m, eastern - 3 m), with a wide passage between them (5 m), previously covered with a vault 41. The fortress nature of the architecture of these gates is clearly visible in their image, preserved in one of the watercolors with views of the city from 1801 42. It shows the cathedral bell tower of Vladimir, erected on this site in XVII V. and included the rebuilt gate with the temple of Joachim and Anna. The lower tier of the bell tower - the gate itself - forms a powerful cubic tower-type volume (about 10 m high), which has an open arched gallery with a parapet at the top, which goes around the temple. At the heart of the gallery, made in forms XVIII c., there was clearly a battle passage that existed on the upper platform of the tower. During the reconstruction, a small temple in the middle of the site was built with an octagonal tier of bells with a high tent.
The gate part of the Trinity Church in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, which represents a monument of the second, monastic group, has a completely different character. The lower tier of this first gate monastery church in Rus' is formed by the Holy Gate - the main entrance to the monastery. In terms of their volumetric and compositional structure, they represent a relatively low quadrangle, almost square in plan (12 x 12.5 m). Three vaulted passages cut through it along the west-east line, the middle of which, about 2 m wide, is through, and the narrower side passages were built from the very beginning on the outer, western façade, thereby forming service premises for the gatekeepers. The central passage did not have any structures inside for combat flooring. And there was simply no room left for the battle platform at the top of the gate, since in terms of its size in plan this tier is identical to the temple located above it.
Thus, it can be stated with certainty that the gate part of the Trinity Church was not suitable for defense and did not carry any military-defensive functions. Quite low, it did not even remotely resemble a fortress tower, being a simple basement tier of the temple. This tier was completely subordinate to the temple, forming with it, in fact, a single volume, formally decorating the main entrance to the monastery. The temple itself, however, like all temple buildings of ancient Rus' in general, did not have any fortification significance.
In light of all of the above, attempts to present the Holy Gate with the Trinity Gate Church of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra as a military defensive structure 43 look completely unacceptable. True, they have already been subjected to serious criticism from a number of researchers, 44 which, in our opinion, does not require further argumentation. And the wooden fence of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra of 1051 in the form of a “standing tower” 45, in line with which the gates with the Trinity Church were placed, also cannot be considered as a military defensive building. Not without reason later, at the end of X II c., it was replaced by a powerful stone fence 46. At the same time, the craftsmen who erected it, clearly feeling that the Holy Gate was unsuitable for defense, specially moved walls forward on both sides near them, forming a kind of bastions 47 .
Unfortunately, none of the other monuments of the second group of gate temples of the pre-Mongol era have survived to this day. However, it can be reasonably assumed that in all monasteries XI - XIII centuries The holy gates with temples above them were not built with defense in mind, and the architecture was far from the form of fortress towers. Such a statement is also based on the fact that the monastic complexes of the pre-Mongol era were not serfs. Their construction was not intended to protect against enemy attack, and therefore there were no fortress walls with towers here, replaced by a simple wooden fence. Not a single written source, including chronicles, mentions stone and wooden fortress walls at monasteries in this era (with the exception of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra). They were not discovered by archaeological excavations either.
True, in science there is still often the opinion that monasteries XI - XV centuries played a significant military-defensive role, especially as advanced outposts near cities 48 . This opinion, however, has been quite convincingly refuted in the works of a number of scientists, including M.K. Kargera, A.L. Mongait and P.A. Rappoporta 49. They quite rightly point out the limited military significance of the monasteries, which had only simple wooden fences and therefore served only sometimes as guard posts. On the other hand, suburban monasteries usually even posed a danger to a besieged city, since they could be used by the enemy to house troops. Therefore, when he approached, the townspeople themselves sought to burn such monasteries. This is directly evidenced by the chronicle news reporting the siege of Novgorod by Moscow troops in 1386 and 1478. In the first case, when the troops of Prince Dmitry Ivanovich Donskoy approached, the Novgorodians “near the city of Pozhgosz great monasteries 24” 50. In the second, they did not have time to set fire to the monasteries that were occupied by Ivan’s troops III Having settled in them and taking the city into a ring, “he began... to stand under the wall with all his forces” 51.
Now let's try to answer the question: why did they stop building gate churches over the passage towers of the fortress walls of cities, Dytinets and Kremlins? The answer to it must be sought in the changes in the military-defensive architecture of ancient Rus' during the period when there was a sharp decline in the construction of these buildings, i.e. V XIV - XV centuries
Gateway Church of the Trinity of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery. Around 1108
Reconstruction
Indeed, it was during this era that serious changes were observed in the development of military-defensive architecture of Rus', associated with a significant increase in the power of fortresses. This is especially clearly reflected in the appearance of stone walls and towers of a new design, as well as in a greater number of towers as part of the fortresses. This new stage in fortress construction is primarily due to the use of new firearms during the siege - artillery 52. Second half XIV V. for all of Europe it was the era of the “triumphant spread” of this new type of weapon 53 . Rus' did not remain aloof from this process. The first chronicle mention of firearms dates back to 1382, when Moscow, defending itself from the attack of Tokhtamysh’s horde, used cannons 54 . Obviously, it was at this time, and perhaps a little earlier, that the Russians became acquainted with artillery. The use of artillery, first for defensive purposes, and then for offensive purposes, caused fundamental changes in the techniques and methods of constructing fortresses, in the forms of their architecture. “One of the first results of the improvement of artillery - as F. Engels very accurately noted - was a complete revolution in the art of fortification” 55. This revolution began in Rus' in the last quarter XIV V. and continued throughout XV century, capturing even the first quarter XVI centuries 56.
In the new conditions of a significant increase in the power of fortresses, the temples that existed above the gate towers of the Kremlin and Detinets turned out to be completely ineffective. Quite appropriate under the previous passive defense, now, when both means of defense and attack have sharply intensified in military affairs, they could no longer find application, because they significantly weakened the passage towers. The towers of the new design had several tiers inside with loopholes, and at the top there was a free area for placing cannons and a significant number of soldiers. Gate temples did not make it possible to constructively erect such multi-tiered towers and at the same time prevented the creation of active defense of their upper platforms. The real requirements of fortification thereby came into direct conflict with the established tradition, which was forced to retreat in front of them.
The violation of this tradition was further facilitated by the arrival in Rus' in the last quarter XV - first third of XVI V. a large number of Italian architects and engineers who took an active part in the extensive construction of fortresses. The powerful fortifications they created in many cities of the Russian state (Moscow, Kolomna, Nizhny Novgorod, etc.) were based on the principles of Western European fortification, having a great influence on the rest of the military and defensive construction of Rus' at that time. In such fortresses, passage towers, as the most vulnerable places, were the subject of special concern for their builders, receiving all sorts of additional protective devices such as diversion arrows, gates, etc. It goes without saying that the construction of gate temples here was out of the question.
Since the beginning of the XVI century, in contrast to the cessation of the construction of gate churches in the system of fortress walls of cities, kremlins and Dytinets, the construction of such buildings in monastic ensembles acquired an extremely wide scope. Placed above the main entrance to the monastery - the holy gates, the churches enhanced the splendor of its appearance, giving it greater impressiveness and "holiness", expressiveness and elegance. All these features perfectly corresponded to the general orientation of Russian architecture XVI - XVII centuries, when solemnity and triumphalism were especially clearly manifested in it, reflecting the general rise of the Russian state.
Detailed examination of gate temples XVI - XVII centuries as part of monastic complexes is not our task. Let us only note the wide variety of their types and forms, among which almost all volumetric composition and planning techniques of religious architecture of that time are found. Here are pillarless, single-domed churches with closed (Arkhangelsk Veliky Ustyug Monastery) and cross-vaulted (Simonov), three-domed (Suzdal Pokrovsky) and five-domed (Iosifov of Volokolamsk and Rostov Metropolis); two-pillar single-headed (Spaso-Prilutsky) and five-domed (Borisoglebsky Rostov); four-pillar, five-domed (Rostov Metropolis); single-tent (Spaso-Preobrazhensky Yaroslavl) and two-tent (Ferapontov) tiered type of octagon on a quadrangle, three-part (Novodevichy) and four-petal (New Jerusalem), etc. It is characteristic that even at this time gate churches did not form a special type of building, different from other types of religious architecture.
Gate Church of St. John the Climacus of the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery.
1569-1572
In XVI - XV centuries monasteries and lord's courtyards, despite the construction of stone fences in them, which became especially widespread in the second half XVII c., for the most part were not any significant fortresses. Their fences usually had limited military-defensive functions, although they basically followed the forms of fortress architecture with walls and towers equipped with loopholes, battlements and military passages. The limited military qualities of such fences are best evidenced by their holy gates with temples above them, which are always interpreted as a grand triumphal entrance and do not have any defensive devices.
True, a number of large monasteries just at this time turned into truly fortified citadels, surrounded by powerful defensive stone walls with towers. Such fortresses were constantly garrisoned and stockpiled with weapons in case of hostilities. The most famous of these fortress monasteries are Solovetsky - in the far North, Kirillov-Belozersky - on the northern borders, Trinity-Sergius - near Moscow and Pskov-Pechersky - on the western borders. Almost all of them were repeatedly attacked by enemies, playing a large role in the defense of the Russian state.
It is characteristic that in the fortress fences of these monasteries the main entrance does not have a gate temple, but is arranged according to all the rules of fortification in the form of a passage tower, thereby following the tradition of the fortress walls of cities and kremlins. It is also interesting that in a number of these monasteries the main passage towers of the new walls were placed in front of the holy gates of the former fence, which, according to the ancient monastic tradition, were crowned with gate churches. Thus, in the Trinity-Sergius Monastery, the entrance Red Tower (middle XVI - mid XVII centuries) is located very close to the former Holy Gate with the Church of Sergius of Radonezh (1513; replaced in 1692-1699 by the Church of John the Baptist) 57. In the Kirillov-Belozersky Monastery, the main passage is the Kazan Tower (second half. XVII c.) is located, on the contrary, quite far from the old gate (1532) with the Church of St. John the Climacus (1569-1572), above it. Such differences in the arrangement of monastery buildings usually arose due to the different periods of their construction. However, in the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery, which was also a fortified royal residence, the architect I.M. Sharutin in 1650-1654. while constructing the corresponding buildings at the same time, he took into account both traditions. The red tower of the fortress fence, which served as the main entrance to the monastery, was placed in front of the Holy Gate with the gate church so that a small courtyard was formed between them, playing a defensive role and at the same time enhancing the expressiveness of the spatial perception of these peculiar propylae.
Gate Church of the Transfiguration of the Kirillov-Belozersky Monastery. 1595
True, turning to the consideration of the architecture of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery, we unexpectedly discover that it represents a kind of exception to the above-mentioned monastic tradition. Above the Holy Gate of its fortress walls, located in one of the towers - Nikolskaya, is the Nikolskaya Church (1564), which was often called the Church of St. Nicholas the Goalkeeper 58. How can one evaluate the appearance of a gate temple in the system of such a powerful fortress, which directly contradicts the statement we previously made?
This contradiction, however, is completely removed by studying specific techniques for combining the gate with the St. Nicholas Church 59. The gate passage here, as usual, is located in the lower tier of the tower, made in the form of a low two-tiered volume of a horseshoe shape. Inside, the passage is not straight, but breaks at a right angle: the outer entrance opening cuts through the western wall, and the exit opening cuts through its southern side, facing the inside of the monastery. It is on this side of the tower that a small single-domed gate church is closely adjacent. It is so closely united with the tower that it forms a single whole structure with it. This is especially clearly evidenced by the lower tier of the church. The vaulted opening in this tier simply continues the passage of the tower to the south. As a result, the gate temple turns out to be almost entirely hidden behind those towers, leaving its second tier and upper platform, used for military-defensive purposes, free. With the help of such a witty technique, the Pskov architect, unknown to us, got out of a difficult situation, remaining faithful to the monastery tradition of erecting a church over the Holy Gate.
Careful study of fortress architecture XVI V. shows that such a solution was not unique, characteristic only of this ensemble. We also find it in the Kazan Kremlin, built mainly during 1555-1565. by order of Tsar Ivan the Terrible. The two main passage towers of this powerful fortress - Spasskaya and Voskresenskaya - were built with the corresponding names included in their composition as gate churches 60.
The Resurrection Tower has not survived to this day, having been dismantled at the beginning XIX V. (?). Various written materials and drawings give a very general idea of its appearance. XVIII V. 61. The Spasskaya Tower, despite a number of later reconstructions, has survived to the present day along with the heavily distorted Church of the Savior Not Made by Hands 62. Based on these data, it is easy to establish that both towers had the same composition in the form of a rectangular tiered volume with an arched passage at the bottom and a combat platform at the end 63. On the inside of the Kremlin, the towers were adjoined by small single-domed and pillarless temples on basements, the passages of which were a direct continuation of the gates of the towers.
Thus, the gate churches of the Kazan Kremlin turn out to be identical to the gate church of St. Nicholas of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery. Moreover, their architecture with a three-part division of facades with blades, multi-bladed ends of the spindles and other details is typical of the Pskov school of architecture XV - XVI centuries This similarity is quite natural, taking into account that the Kazan Kremlin, as is known, was also built by Pskovites: a prominent architect of the middle XVI c., “church and city master” Postnik Yakovlev and the artel of Pskov masons led by Ivan Shiryai 64.
It is much more difficult to answer the question of how these unique gate temples arose. Is this an “invention” of the Pskov architects of the middle XVI V. is it a response to the new demands of fortress construction, or is there some kind of stable tradition behind it? The latter seems more likely to us, taking into account the construction almost simultaneously in two places quite far from each other - Kazan and the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery - gate churches of a similar nature. In addition, their builders were clearly not the same Pskov craftsmen.
Obviously, in Pskov architecture there was a previously formed tradition of placing gate churches in a similar way during the construction of passage towers of fortress walls, without thereby detracting from their defensive power. Such a decision looks quite natural for the architects of Pskov, especially those experienced in fortress construction, given the location and role of the city itself as an advanced outpost of the Russian state on its western borders. True, the search in Pskov itself and its lands for such gate temples near the passage towers of the fortress walls turned out to be fruitless. We have not found information about such buildings in Pskov written sources. But in the documentary materials on Novgorod the Great, the center closest to Pskov and its “elder brother,” there is evidence of the existence of gate churches of just this nature, which, in addition, is confirmed by ancient images of this city on icons.
The inventory of Novgorod in 1675 recorded the presence of gate churches 65 at all five passage towers of the detinets - Prechistenskaya, Spasskaya, Pokrovskaya, Resurrection and Vladimirskaya. The text of the inventory characterizes these structures in exactly the same way: the temples were adjacent to the tetrahedral towers from the inside of the “city,” placed above their gate passage. So, for example, about the Vladimir Tower it is said that it is “quadrangular, with a straight gateway, and a stone vault in it, from the inside of the city the church of the Grand Duke Vladimer is attached, in the driveway gate and with the fact that under the church there are eight fathoms and a quarter, across the the walls are 2 fathoms without a quarter, and with the walls 5 fathoms and a third." About the Resurrection Tower: “The Resurrection Tower with a straight roadway gate, and in it a stone vault, from the inside of the city the Church of the Resurrection of Christ is attached, the length of the tower is in the passage and with the fact that under the church there are 7 fathoms, across the walls the floor is 2 fathoms, and with the walls across the tower there are 7 fathoms and a quarter" 66.
Gate Church of the Savior with the Spasskaya Tower of the Kazan Kremlin. 1555-1565
This inventory information is clearly confirmed by the images of the Novgorod child on several icons. These include the “Vision of Sexton Tarasius” icon from the Khutyn Monastery (Novgorod Museum) 67, as well as three “Sign” icons, which depict the miraculous deliverance of Novgorod in 1170 from the Suzdal army. These icons, based on their former location in Novgorod churches, are usually called Florolavskaya (Church of Flora and Lavra on Legoschaya Street) 68, Znamenskaya (Znamensky Cathedral) 69 and Mikhailovskaya (Church of the Archangel Michael) 70. In all icon images, the gate temples are shown at the same passage towers of the Detinets, marked in the inventory 71. They are presented in the form of small single-domed churches, adjacent from the inside of the detinets close to the walls of the towers and placed above the continuation of their gate parts. Thus, in terms of the general nature of their architecture, these buildings turn out to be similar to the Pskov gate churches discussed earlier.
The question arises: when did such churches appear in Novgorod Detinets, and did they precede the Pskov ones or, on the contrary, appeared after them? In other words, whose tradition was it - Novgorod or Pskov?
The very dating of the above icons forces us to attribute the temples depicted on them to a time earlier than X VII V. Of the three icons of the Sign, the oldest, Florolarskaya, dates back to the beginning of the 10th century. VII V. (the other two are abroad XVII - XVIII centuries and even the beginning of X VIII c.), and the icon “Vision of the sexton Tarasius” belongs to the second half XVI - early XVII V. 72 As for the Detinets presented on them, its construction was carried out in the last quarter XV century
The Novgorod Detinets, according to chronicles, was erected during 1484-1499. 73: “A stone city was quickly erected in Veliky Novegrad by order of the Grand Duke Iiann Vasilyevich of All Russia, under Archbishop Genady: in two parts the Grand Duke’s money, and the third the ruler’s money” 74. It was at this time that all of its above-mentioned passage towers with gate churches 75 were built. IN XVI V. The reconstruction of the Detinets was insignificant and cannot be identified with the construction of gate churches. All the attention of the Novgorodians in this century was focused on the Okolny city - the outer line of the fortifications of Novgorod 76. Consequently, the Novgorod gate churches that interest us clearly preceded the Pskov ones and served as prototypes for them.
Despite the Grand Duke's order and financing of most of the construction from Ivan's treasury III , the architecture of Detinets cannot be considered Moscow, as is sometimes claimed 77. It clearly preserved the former Novgorod traditions, as directly evidenced by the chronicle news of 1484, which announced the beginning of construction work: “they began to build the city of Kamen Detynets on the old basis” 78 . It is primarily about following the general configuration of the plan of the previous Detinets. Archaeological excavations have indeed established that during construction the foundations of former stone walls and towers and even parts of their masonry were widely used as a “base”. On the other hand, in the architecture of Detinets itself, local artistic tastes were clearly evident, clearly visible in the shapes and proportions of the towers themselves and in their decor, including belts of fractional brick ornaments on the facades of the rows of runners and curbs, edges over loopholes and inset stone crosses in the walls 80 .
In light of all of the above, it is precisely the Novgorod tradition that should be attributed to the emergence of gate temples near the passage towers. Moscow, which financed most of the construction at that time, did not use such churches at all in its military-defensive architecture. Here we see the Kremlin, where all the gate towers without exception received temples, which in itself is a unique fact. It goes without saying that such a plan cannot simply be attributed to the Novgorod architecture of the last quarter XV V. With the loss of independence of the veche republic, it had already lost its strong independent foundations, feeding on the reflected light of past traditions and increasingly falling into direct dependence on Moscow.
The validity of such a conclusion becomes especially convincing if we remember that the fortifications of the Okolny city of Novgorod, built throughout XIV - XV centuries with passage stone towers (a number of them were built at the end XV c., i.e. almost simultaneously with Detynets) 81, did not have gate churches at all. On the other hand, chronicle evidence recorded, as we saw earlier, the existence of such temples as part of the Novgorod Detinets at the earliest stages of its stone construction, even at the end XII - early XIV V. 82. It is characteristic that even then these temples were erected above all its gates, of which there were even six at that time 83 . It is obvious that it was this ancient tradition that determined the “rebirth” of gate temples in the new fortification.
A much more complicated question is when the gate temples of the Novgorod Detinets acquired their specificity of being hidden behind the towers. P.L. Gusev, who devoted two articles to the consideration of images of Detinets on icons, believed that such temples had existed here since ancient times - the end XII c.: the first gate church of the Deposition of the Robe in 1195, in his opinion, was already adjacent to the stone passage tower from inside the Kremlin 84. Other researchers shared a similar point of view. It was substantiated most convincingly by M.Kh. Aleshkovsky, who explained the specificity of the Novgorod gate churches by their later construction in relation to the passage towers and the initial difference in their building material 85. According to him, these temples arose “at a time when Detinets was made of wood,” and since they “began to be built in stone, they were naturally attached to wooden towers” 86 .
Such a point of view seems erroneous to us, especially based on the unnaturalness of the assumption of adding a stone temple to a wooden tower. In addition, it does not take into account either the general evolution of the gate churches of ancient Rus', or the very chronicle wording of the article about the construction of the first such Novgorod church known to us. This church was built, as is known, in the system of wood-earth fortifications of Detinets, built back in 1044–1116. 87 Chronicles quite accurately report that the stone temple of the Deposition of the Robe was built in 1195 “at the city gates” 88. In other words, it was placed above the passage tower of the Detinets, for the gate of the “city”, i.e. Fortresses in ancient Rus' always had the form of a tower structure with an arched passage below. It goes without saying that this main gate tower, which stood on the bank of the Volkhov and later received the name Prechistenskaya just because of the temple located on it, was not wooden, but stone, being the main entrance to the Novgorod Detinets.
This understanding of the text of the news about the construction of the Temple of the Deposition of the Robe is confirmed by earlier chronicle information about the construction of stone gate churches in Kyiv, Vladimir and Pereyaslavl South 89. All of the named churches are built on the main city gates of Detinets, which, as we saw earlier, are powerful stone passage towers. Moreover, from the chronicle texts it is clear that these churches were built on gates that were erected somewhat earlier. This is directly evidenced by the expression used everywhere (including in Novgorod) “build a church on the gate,” which implies the creation of a temple on a previously erected tower, i.e., the construction of the entire structure in two stages. Finally, it is necessary to point out that in Kyiv and Vladimir the city’s fortifications also consisted of earthen ramparts and wooden walls on them, as in Novgorod Detinets. In all its early buildings, Novgorod clearly followed the general tradition of military-defensive architecture of Rus' XI - XII centuries.
In the light of the same tradition, it is necessary to consider the next gate temple of the Novgorod Detinets in terms of construction - the Church of Fyodor of 1233. 90 Placed on the gate of the Nerevsky end, it was apparently also located above the corresponding Fedorovskaya stone tower, which served as a passage to the existing in this part of the Detinets the lord's courtyard and to the nearby St. Sophia Cathedral. There is no evidence to suggest that this church is adjacent from the inside to the tower, which is also wooden. It is worth noting that a church of similar importance above the stone tower of the detinets with a gate leading to the bishop's courtyard and inside the fence of the cathedral (Assumption) church is known in Vladimir. This is the Church of Joachim and Anna, built in 1196, also the second gate church of the city on Klyazma 91.
Apparently, only in the process of further construction of the Detinets of Novgorod does the formation of the unique three-dimensional composition of the gate temples discussed above take place. This is also supported by the sharp increase in the total number of such buildings in the Detinets complex, which is not observed in any other architectural ensemble, especially of a military-defensive nature. Subsequently, four more gate churches were built, as a result of which all six passage towers of Detinets ended up with such churches.
This further construction of the detinets, associated with its transformation into a stone fortress, took place for quite a long time, from the end of the 19th century. III century until the middle of the 15th century V. It breaks down into two main stages, the first of which covers the end of X III - beginning of XIV in., and the second is the end XIV - first third of XV V. 92. At the first stage, four gate churches were erected - the Resurrection (1296), the Transfiguration (1297), the Intercession (1305) and Vladimir (1311) 93, obviously with corresponding travel towers 94, as well as walls along the Volkhov, from the Vladimir Church to the Borisoglebskaya Church (1331 -1334) 95 . During the second, the construction of stone walls was completed in all other areas around Detinets (1400 to 1424-1430s) 96, and almost all the gate churches were rebuilt. Chronicles note at this time the construction of the Churches of the Intercession (1389), Resurrection (1398), Laying of the Robe (1419?) and Transfiguration (1426) 97 . We know about the reconstruction of the Vladimir Church in the 1420s from archaeological excavations 98.
It is significant that at the second stage the Fedorovsky Church is not mentioned. Obviously, during the reconstruction, its tower was turned from a passage into a blind one, and therefore the gate church itself disappeared. This is exactly the Fedorovskaya tower that was repeated during the construction of the new Detinets in 1484-1499, acquiring a round shape in plan 99.
However, it is quite difficult to finally decide which of these two stages the emergence of Novgorod churches, placed from the inside close to the walls of the Detinets towers, can be attributed to. In fact, there is no objective data for this. M.H. Aleshkovsky, who considered such temples to have appeared already at the end of the 10th century II - first third X III V. at the Prechistenskaya (Rizopolozhenskaya) and Fedorovskaya towers, the rest of the churches also belonged to the first period 100. He drew on the data from the archaeological excavations he carried out in 1957 in Ditynets, near the two surviving gate towers of the end XV V. - Spasskaya and Vladimirskaya. Unfortunately, the results of these excavations remained unpublished, being only partially presented in one of his works 101. It talks about the allegedly found during sounding of the masonry walls of the Church of the Transfiguration in 1297 and the adjoining tower in 1302. But it is impossible to understand how these buildings differ from each other given the complete identity of the masonry (this is directly stated in the text) and especially given the location of the temple on the gate, i.e. in the second tier. Moreover, the lower tier of the temple was a basement with an arched opening for passage, continuing the gate of the tower. Meanwhile, it is known that such towers were often adjacent to a variety of extensions from inside the detinets, as evidenced by the fortifications of the same Novgorod detinets.
We consider it more likely that a special type of Novgorod gate temples emerged in the second period, i.e. at the end XIV - first third of XV V. It was during this period that dramatic changes took place in the military-defensive architecture of ancient Rus', associated with the development of artillery. All this probably influenced the construction of the Novgorod Detinets, during the completion of which new travel towers were built. In them, Novgorod architects strengthened the defensive significance not only with new design techniques, but, apparently, also with the original placement of gate churches inside the fortress, behind the “body” of the tower itself, thereby preserving the previous tradition.
Now we will try to answer the question about the origin of ancient Russian gate churches, taking into account their uniqueness. As we have already indicated, such temples are not found either in the architecture of Byzantium itself, or in the architecture of the Balkan countries. Moreover, they are generally unknown to the architecture of the rest of the Eastern Christian world 102. And in Western European architecture of the Middle Ages we do not find anything similar.
The uniqueness of the gate temples is perhaps best evidenced by the statements of foreign travelers XVI - XVII centuries, which emphasize their truly Russian character. Thus, the Lvov merchant Martin Gruneweg, a German by birth, who visited Kyiv in 1584, reports that above the Golden Gate, which “is mostly destroyed... a chapel was built - according to the custom of the Russians, who decorate their gates with beautiful churches on top, giving to God to security" 103. He is echoed by someone who has been in the middle XVII V. in Rus', Paul of Aleppo, who repeatedly mentions that “Russians and Muscovites build small churches over the gates of their monasteries 104.”
The closest analogues of the gate temples of ancient Rus' can be considered small churches and chapels of Eastern Christian monasteries, which were located in fortress towers (pirgi) above their entrance gates. We find such churches in some monasteries in Greece, such as Evangelistria on the island of Skiathos (Skiathos) 105, part of the Se Sporades archipelago. They are most widespread in the Svyatogorsk monasteries on Mount Athos. Here, in a number of monasteries - the Great Lavra, Ivero Vatopedi, Karakala and Kostamonitou - there were small chapel churches or chapels in the towers above the entrance gates, called "paraklis" in Greek 106.
True, it should immediately be noted that the same churches were located in other fortress towers, which were part of the fence, but were not accessible. So, for example, in 1845 in the Great Lavra, out of nine blind towers, six had churches inside; in Hilandar there were two such towers with temples, in Esphigmen, Xenothes, Dochiar and Zograf - one each 107. These churches, regardless of the nature of the architecture of the towers themselves - blind or drive-through, were located inside their powerful volumes, usually occupying the very top floor of the tier. In the external appearance of the towers themselves - and this is important to emphasize - they were not revealed in any way, completely hidden for defense purposes behind their mighty walls, often completed with machicolations with a gallery and a “crown” of battlements.
A similar custom of placing temples or chapels inside fortress towers is characteristic of the monasteries of Athos. It is directly opposite to the ancient Russian tradition of gate churches, which were necessarily revealed from the outside in the form of temple buildings with all their specific architectural forms. And vice versa, this Athonite custom finds direct parallels in the dungeons of Western European castles and burgs, which also often had a small house chapel on one of their floors.
It is worth noting here that the most ancient towers of the Athonite monasteries, dating back to XII - XIV centuries, had a character identical to the dungeons. They served as the last refuge for the monks during enemy attacks, as well as the storage place for the monastery treasury and the most valuable items. And in appearance, these piers stood out among the other towers with their power, large size and height, dominating the silhouette of the monastery ensemble. A clear idea of their architecture can be formed by looking at the architecture of the monasteries of Hilandara, Vatopedi Iveron and Xiropotamus. The Khrel's Tower (1335-1336) of the Rila Monastery in Bulgaria with the Church of the Transfiguration on the upper sixth tier, which arose clearly under the influence of the Athos tradition 108, should also be included among such piers. Similar towers are also found in some monasteries in Serbia (Resava, etc.)
However, most of these churches in the towers of the monasteries of Athos and other Balkan countries, including those above the gates, date back to a relatively late time. They arose much later than the construction of the towers themselves and date mainly from the 16th century. XVII centuries It was at this time that a huge number of paraklises appeared in the Athonite monasteries - small churches, chapels and chapels, of which there were about a thousand. They existed “occasionally in the form of special churches or Russian chapels standing in the monastery courtyard, more often inside cells, in feasts, hospitals, meals, etc.” 109
It goes without saying that all these very late paraklises could not in any way influence the emergence of ancient Russian gate churches. Even taking into account the earliest examples of churches inside the towers, since the piers of Athos themselves date back no earlier XII V. 110. And the point of placing such paraclises in the piers (as well as in other buildings) he wore, as N.P. rightly notes. Kondakov, purely “official character” 111.
The image of a Novgorod child on the Mikhailovskaya icon “The Sign” of the late 17th – early 18th centuries.
The reasons for their such abundant appearance received an exhaustive explanation from V.G. Grigorovich-Barsky, a traveler who repeatedly visited the Holy Mountain in 1723-1747. as a pilgrim. He attributes the construction of the paraklis to numerous ktitors, linking it with increased liturgical needs and “blessed wines” 112.
Khrel's Tower of the Rila Monastery in Bulgaria. 1335-1336
Although in ancient Rus' gate churches were always used as temple buildings, that is, for their intended purpose, their construction was by no means associated with a simple increase in places of worship. And besides, the first examples of the construction of such churches were in the middle and second half XI c., as we know, refer not to monasteries, but to the fortress walls of the largest cities - Kyiv and Pereyaslav South.
True, among the Athonite monasteries there is one whose gate temple stands somewhat apart from all the others. This is the Georgian monastery of Iveron with the Church of the Mother of God, which is perhaps the oldest gate paraklis of this nature known to us. A legendary tale tells about its creation, interesting for us in many respects 113. It is associated with the monastery shrine - the revealed icon of the Mother of God of Iveron, which allegedly sailed by sea from Nicaea and was placed by the monks in the monastery church. However, the next day the icon was found at the gates of the monastery. Several times they tried to return her to the temple, but she again returned to her original place. Then the Mother of God appeared in a dream to one of the elders of the monastery and said that she had come here not to be protected, but to protect the monks and their monastery herself. After this, the icon was left on the gate, and then a gate temple was built for it in the name of Our Lady of Portaitissa, that is, the Goalkeeper 114.
According to the legend, this event occurred somewhere at the turn X - XI centuries, which is of particular interest to us, since it turns out to precede the first ancient Russian gate churches. In addition, the main symbolic and semantic meaning of the icon, and with it the church built for it, was to protect the monastery and provide it with divine protection. Finally, it is significant that it is in connection with this temple that Paul of Aleppo speaks about the Russian custom of erecting churches at the gates of their monasteries 115. Therefore, there is reason to believe that this fact could have influenced the construction of the Church of the Annunciation on the Golden Gate of Kyiv. Moreover, on Athos at the beginning XI V. Anthony, the founder of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery, a prominent church figure of that era, visited 116.
Unfortunately, we do not know exactly what the architecture of this gate church of the Iversky Monastery was, which has not survived to this day. In other words, did it represent an independent temple building, erected on the gate, or was it located inside a tower with a gate passage below. And it depends on this which of the traditions it should be considered at the basis - Athonite itself or Old Russian.
Thus, according to Paul of Aleppo, the monks “erected a beautiful church named Paraklis for the image above the gates of the monastery, in exactly the same way as we mentioned above, both Russians and Muscovites build churches on the gates of their monasteries” 117. However, according to other sources, a small church was built “in a strong tower above the Lavra gate” 118. A charter from the Iversky Monastery in 1667, sent to Alexei Mikhailovich with a request for help in funds, interprets the same opinion somewhat differently: “Near the gates of our monastery there is a very high tower, at the top of which the Church of the Entry of the Blessed Virgin into the temple was built, and at the bottom of the tower was built Church of the Most Holy Theotokos Portaitissa, where her miraculous icon was placed" 119. Soon this dilapidated tower was dismantled, and in 1680 a small temple was erected near the gate, where the icon 120 stands.
It is quite difficult to understand all this rather contradictory information. Most likely, the temple was located inside the entrance tower itself, which had a gate at the bottom. Otherwise, it is difficult to assume the further development of just such a tradition on Athos or, on the other hand, the singularity of this example, which does not find any continuation on local soil.
To resolve the question of the origin of these temples, it is necessary to turn to the earliest monuments in time, which, in fact, determined their further existence. These are the churches of the Annunciation on the Golden Gate of Kyiv (c. 1037) and Fedora on the city gates of Pereyaslavl South (1089-1090).
The first of these temples is especially important, dating back to the brilliant era of monumental construction in Kyiv, which was carried out by Yaroslav the Wise in the second third XI V. This construction, which resulted in the construction of a large new city with a number of magnificent churches, including the huge St. Sophia Cathedral in the center, largely imitated Constantinople as the capital of the entire Eastern Christian world. Such a desire to place Kyiv, the capital city of the young ancient Russian state, on a par with the famous Constantinople is clearly visible even in the names of the main buildings of Yaroslav, repeating those of Constantinople - the St. Sophia Cathedral, the monasteries of Irina and St. George with temples and the Golden Gate of the city fortifications. Indicative in this regard are the words of the German chronicler of the second half XI V. Adam of Bremen, who called Kyiv of that time “the rival of Constantinople” and “the most glorious adornment of the East.”
However, the Golden Gate of Kyiv had little in common with its Constantinople prototype, dating back to V V. The latter was a three-span arch of a triumphal type, flanked on the sides by strongly projected tower volumes of a fortress nature. There was no temple above the gate; following the example of Roman triumphal arches, they were crowned with statues, enhancing the overall splendor of the architecture 121. Obviously, during the construction of the Golden Gate of Kyiv, the model was not the specific forms of the Constantinople monument, but its general idea of the main front entrance to the city 122. The reasons for the emergence of ancient Russian gate churches must be sought in the specific historical situation associated with the first of such buildings. Based on all of the above, there is no doubt that the installation of the Church of the Annunciation on the Golden Gate - the main fortress passage tower of Kyiv - pursued very specific goals of an ideological and symbolic nature.
We have already partly spoken about one of these goals - the “divine protection” of the gates, and with them the entire city. The above words of Martin Groeneweg perfectly reveal the meaning of the construction in Rus' of temples above the gates, which, as it were, are thereby given over to “God for protection.” The gate church acted as a kind of “amulet”, guarding the entrance to a fortress or monastery, protecting them with its presence from a variety of disasters and attacks from enemies.
Such an appeal to the help of a deity to protect gate structures is typical for a wide variety of eras and peoples, starting from ancient times. It was the gate, which was usually the connecting link between the “internal space” of a certain society and the “external” space, which was largely hostile to it, that needed special protection from higher powers, the deity. Hence the appearance of all kinds of images of gods on the gates, made by sculptural or pictorial means. As an example, let us name at least the monumental “Ishtar Gate” in one of the walls of ancient Babylon ( VI V. BC BC), which had relief polychrome images of various semi-fantastic deified animals made of glazed brick.
In Byzantium, icons were used for divine protection of fortress gates. The beginning of this custom dates back to V - VI centuries and is associated with one of the oldest icon images, “The Savior Not Made by Hands,” originating from Edessa. Placed above the city gates, this icon, according to legend, saved Edessa from the Persians besieging it in 544. It was solemnly transferred to the middle X V. to Constantinople, she was greeted by the emperor and the jubilant people, enclosed around the fortress walls of the city and delivered through the Golden Gate to the Great Palace, thereby following the triumphant path of commanders returning with victory. From then on, the icon turned into the most valuable relic of Constantinople and the entire empire, into its original palladium. And numerous lists from the “Savior Not Made by Hands” are widely distributed throughout Byzantium, eventually also ending up in Rus'. They are often used as just such a protective image, placed above city or monastery gates 123.
Subsequently, the same protective functions become characteristic of other icon images. In this sense, the legend we examined about the gate icon of the Iveron Mother of God, which also became the guardian of the monastery, is indicative. True, in Rus' such icons above the gates of fortress walls become widely known relatively late - only starting from XV V. But this does not mean that they did not take place in the pre-Mongol era. And one such fact was recorded in the chronicles under 1151 and is connected precisely with the Golden Gate, which was decorated with the image of the Virgin Mary 124. And the construction of an additional gate temple above the gates not only strengthened divine protection, but also served at the same time as a symbol of the highest patronage of the city.
The idea of placing a temple on the main gate of Kyiv could have come from the Great Prince Yaroslav the Wise himself, who sought not only to decorate his capital with magnificent temples, but also to create a triumphal entrance worthy of it, a kind of solemn propylaea. And if to decorate the Golden Gate of Constantinople V V. If ancient sculpture turned out to be quite appropriate, then for their Kyiv “likeness” we had to turn to the purely architectural forms of a new Christian religious building - a church.
To understand the meaning of such an original fact of the first installation of the temple on the main gate of the fortifications of Kyiv, it is necessary to turn to one of the most famous literary works of that era - Hilarion’s “Tale of Law and Grace”. Its author, a priest of the court church of the Savior on Berestov, who later (1051) became the first Russian metropolitan of Kyiv, was one of the most enlightened and progressive thinkers of the time of Yaroslav the Wise. There is even an assumption that the “Word” was first pronounced by him in the St. Sophia Cathedral, in the presence of Yaroslav and his family, and precisely in honor of the completion of the construction of Kyiv defensive structures in 1049 125. In this regard, it acquires special interest for our topic.
Indeed, the glorification of the Russian land, which adopted Christianity, as well as its “baptist” Prince Vladimir and the successor of his work, Prince Yaroslav, is one of the main themes of the “Sermon on Law and Grace” 126. The last part of this work sounds like a panegyric to Yaroslav, which especially emphasizes his actions in the construction of Kyiv, which turned into a magnificent Christian city. Grand Duke "the house of God is great and his wisdom of the congress for the holiness and consecration of the city... adorn it with all beauty with gold and silver and precious stones, and with honest judgments, even the churches are wondrous and glorious to all the surrounding countries, as if nothing else will be found in all midnight earthly, from east to west; and your glorious city of majestic Kiev, like a crown, was given over by your people and the city of saints to all-gloriousness, quickly to the aid of Christians, the Holy Mother of God, and to her the church at the great gates of the congress in the name of the first Lord's feast of the Holy Annunciation. .." 127 .
It was the creation of churches “for the holiness and consecration of the city” that largely determined the significance of the Church of the Annunciation on the Golden Gate, with the creation of which Kyiv and its fortifications were transferred under the patronage and protection of the Mother of God. The very mention in the Lay of the construction of this particular gate church, along with the St. Sophia Cathedral, shows how much importance was attached to it. In the creation of a new image of Kyiv, a city of “shining majesty,” an important role belonged to the Annunciation Gate Church, as the “Word” directly testifies to this 128.
Under these conditions, the placement of the temple on the main gate of the city acquired a special meaning as a visual political demonstration of the holiness of Kyiv, divine protection from the Mother of God and through her, Christ. In the aspect of symbolic interpretation of the dedication of this temple to the Annunciation, it acts as good news brought by the Archangel Gabriel to the Mother of God. The created church itself is also a kind of good news to Kyiv. In the “Word” this parallel is directly drawn: just as the archangel announced to the Mother of God “Rejoice, joyful one, the Lord is with you,” in the same way he seems to address Kyiv with the words “Rejoice, blessed city, the Lord is with you” 129.
Such an original decision to erect a temple on the Golden Gate could have been suggested to its patron, Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise, by Hilarion himself, who was one of the ideologists of that era. This assumption is based on the large role assigned in the “Word” to this particular church, as well as to the newly erected fortifications 130. Of course, the architects and craftsmen who erected the Golden Gate, among whom the main ones were Greeks, could not rely on their own traditions and “models.” It is curious that the temple was not built immediately after the construction of the gate, but somewhat later. Obviously, the idea of its construction did not arise simultaneously with the Golden Gate itself, but after their construction and was associated with the strengthening of the symbolic and urban significance of this temple.
It should be noted that it was in the Lay that Yaroslav's political ideas received the most vivid embodiment 131. Therefore, the emergence of the Gate Church of the Annunciation over the Golden Gate is closely related to the general ideological and political tasks of the era. As for the emergence of such an idea, Hilarion, being a tonsure of the founder of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery Anthony, could have gleaned it from conversations with him about Athos and the monasteries of the Holy Mountain. More precisely, about Iveron, its miraculous icon of Our Lady Portaitissa and the gate chapel created in honor of her. However, this idea in the new conditions of Rus' received a completely different interpretation with the identification of the temple building, or rather, its “ascension” to the gate tower, and not the imprisonment of its “body” inside, as is typical for all monasteries of Athos.
1 We do not provide here a list of such works, since most of them will be indicated below, in the corresponding sections of the article devoted to the consideration of individual monuments.
2 “In the summer of 6545. Yaroslav founded the great city, its cities are the Golden Gates... and therefore the church on the Golden Gates is the Holy Mother of God Annunciation” (The Tale of Bygone Years. M.; Leningrad, 1950. Part 1. P. 102 ).
3 “In the summer of 6597... laid a church on the city gates in the name of the holy martyr Theodore... And the city laid a stone from the church of the holy martyr Theodore” (Ibid. P. 137).
4 Synopsis, or Brief collection from various chroniclers. Kyiv, 1680. Publ. 3. P. 100.
5 “In the summer of 6672. The church on the Golden Gate of Volodymeri was sacred” (PSRL. T. I . P. 351; see also: T. VII. P. 77).
6 "That same summer (6702. - V.V.) Blessed Prince Vsevolod Yurgevich laid a child, in the city of Volodymeri in the month of June on the 4th day." In the summer of 6704, "the blessed Bishop John laid a stone on the gate of the Holy Mother of God Church in the name of Akym and Anna in the month of May on the 1st day" (PSRL. T. I . pp. 411, 412; see also: T. X. pp. 23, 29, 30).
7 Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions, M.; L., 1950. S. 32, 34, 36, 37, 41-42, 50, 72.
8 Right there. pp. 92, 93, 328.
9 Golubinsky E.E. Venerable Sergius of Radonezh and the Trinity Lavra created by him // CHOIDR. M., 1909. Book. 3. P. 103, 218-219; see also: Trofimov I.V. Architectural monuments of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. M., 1961. P. 224-225, approx. 18.
10 The wooden Mozhaisk Kremlin with the stone Nikolsky Gate and the Church of the Ascension above them is often dated XVI V. (cm.: Sergeeva-Kozina T.N. Mozhaisk Kremlin 1624-1626 // MIA USSR. M., 1952. No. 31. P. 352-354, 363-364; Architectural monuments of the Moscow region. M., 1975. T. 2. P. 8). However, there are serious reasons to date the monument to an earlier time.
11 “And the great prince Boris Alexandrovich... built a temple for King Christ himself at the gates of the God-saved city of Tferi and called the name of that temple the Entrance to Jerusalem.” (Likhachev N.P. Monk Thomas has a word of praise about the blessed Grand Duke Boris Alexandrovich. St. Petersburg, 1908. pp. 21-22).
12 Novgorod First Chronicle... P. 388, 393; Novgorod Chronicles. St. Petersburg, 1879. S. 248, 268.
13 Novgorod First Chronicle... P. 418-419; Novgorod Chronicles. pp. 257,261,270.
14 Brief chronicler of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra // Gorsky A.V. Historical description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. M., 1890. Part 2. P. 177.
15 Shelyapina N.S. Archaeological study of architectural monuments began XVI V. in the Savvino-Storozhevsky Monastery // Medieval Rus'. M., 1976. S. 303-309; see also: Architectural monuments of the Moscow region. M., 1975. T. 1. P. 181.
16 Voronin N.N. Vladimir: Bogolyubovo: Suzdal: Yuryev Polskoy. M., 1983. Ed. 5. P. 200; see also: Wagner G.K. Suzdal. M., 1969. P. 14.
17 Jurgenson P.B. Church of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary on Voemishche // Materials on the history of Russian art. M., 1928. Issue. 1. P. 14; Girshberg V.B. Inscription by master Dodder // SA. 1959. No. 2. P. 248-249.
18 Kochetkov I.L. Lelekova O.V., Podyapolsky S.S. Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. L., 1979. pp. 35-36.
19 Bryusova V.G. Ipatiev Monastery. Yaroslavl, 1968. P. 19.
20 Savvaitov P.I.Description of the Vologda Spaso-Prilutsky Monastery. Vologda. 1914 Ed. 4 P. 29.
21 Tokmakov I.F. Historical and archaeological description of the Moscow stauropegial and first-class Simonov Monastery. M., 1896. P. 23.
22 Dositheus. Chronicler Solovetsky. M., 1847. Ed., 4. P. 48-49; Maksimov P., Svirsky I. New materials on the ancient buildings of the Solovetsky Monastery // AN. M., 1958. Sat. 10. P. 122.
23 Rozhdestvensky V A. Historical description of the Serpukhov Vladychny monastery. M., 1866. S 23, 127; Rappoport P.A. Russian tent-roofed architecture of the end XVI V. // MIA USSR. M.; L., 1949. No. 12. P. 263-268.
24 Dionysius.A brief chronicle of the Mozhaisk Luzhetsky second-class monastery from 1408 to 1892. M., 1892. P. 26; see also: Architectural monuments of the Moscow region. T. 2. P. 13.
25 The Church of the Intercession (1687) above the southern gate and the Church of the Transfiguration (1688) above the northern were built here. Cm.: Antushev N. Historical description of the Moscow Novodevichy Convent. M., 1885. C 67.70; Mashkov I.P. Architecture of the Novodevichy Convent in Moscow. M., 1949. S. 60, 78.
26 The Church of the Presentation (1680) above the northern gate and the Church of Sergius (c. 1680) above the southern one were built here. See: Melnik A.G. New data on the history of the ensemble of the Rostov Boris and Gleb Monastery // Studies of architectural monuments of Rostov the Great. Rostov, 1992. pp. 76-104.
27 Titov A.A. Kremlin of Rostov the Great. M., 1905. P. 26 et seq.; Eding B. Rostov Veliky, Uglich. M., [b.g.]. pp. 78, 89-90.
28 Suvorov N.I. Vologda Bishop's House. Vologda, 1898. P. 16.
29 That same summer (6701. - V.V.) the church of St. John was built Merciful at the Gate of the Resurrection" (Novgorod First Chronicle. P. 41).
30 "The temple of the miracle worker Demetrius of Selunsk was before the destruction in the Trinity Monastery... on the gate" (Golubinsky E.E. Decree. Op. P. 103).
31 Karger M.K. Ancient Kyiv. M.; L., 1961. T. 2. P 370-374; Umantsev F. Trotskaya over the gate of the Kikovo-Pechersk Lavri church. Kiev, 1970; Rappoport P.A. Russian architecture X - XIII centuries; Catalog of monuments. L., 1982. No. 34. P. 25-26; Aseev Yu.S. Architecture of ancient Kyiv. Kyiv, 1982. pp. 85-87, 93.
32 Voronin N.N. Architecture of North-Eastern Rus' XII - XV centuries M., 1961. T. 1. P. 128-148; Stoletov A.V. On the reconstruction of monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal white stone architecture // Monuments of history and culture. Yaroslavl, 1976. Issue. 1. From 83-84; Rappoport P.A. Russian architecture X - XIII centuries No. 81. P. 56.
33 From the extensive list of works devoted to this monument, we will point out only the last two largest, which also contain an extensive bibliography. Cm.: Rappoport P.A. Russian architecture X -X III centuries No. 17. From 15-16; Vysotsky S.A. Golden Gate in Kyiv. Kyiv, 1982.
34 Karger M.K. Monuments of ancient Russian architecture in Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky // Architecture of Ukraine. Kyiv, 1954. S. 272-273; Aseev Yu.S., Kozn O.K., Skorski M.İ . Yura R.O. Doslİdzhennya kam "yanok sporudi XI Art. in Pereyaslav-Khmelyshtsky ditintsİ // Bulletin of the Academy of Budİvnitstva İ Architecture of the URSR. 1962. No. 4. P. 57-61; Aseev Yu.S. The Golden Gate of Kyiv and the Episcopal Gate of Pereyaslav // Bulletin of the Kiev University. Ser. The history of rights. 1967. No. 8. VIP. 1. pp. 45-54; Rappoport P.A.. Russian architecture X - X III centuries. No. 45. P. 33.
35 Voronin N.N. Decree. Op. T. 1. P. 446-457; Rappoport P.A. Russian architecture X - XIII centuries No. 75. pp. 52-53.
36 cm .: Umantsev F. Decree. Op.
37 cm .: Voronin N.N. Decree. Op. T. 1. pp. 141-148.
38 cm .: Vysotsky S.A. Decree. Op. pp. 70-126. A recent arch. A. Lopushinskaya’s complete “restoration” of the monument, extremely unsuccessful and fundamentally incorrect in its methodology, turned it into a simple model. See about this: Kostochkin V.. Kirpichnikov A.. Rappoport P.. Titz A. Golden Gate in Kyiv: has the original appearance been “recreated”? // Architecture of the USSR. 1985. No. 3. P. 105-107.
39 Voronin N.N. Decree. Op. T. 1. P. 455.
40 Aseev Yu.S.. Kozin O.K., Sikorsky M.I.. Yura R.O. Decree. Op. pp. 57-60; Rappoport P.A. Russian architecture X - XIII centuries P. 131. Table. 15. Fig. 45.
41 Voronin N.N. Decree. Op. T. 1. P. 449. Fig. 213. P. 454. Fig. 219.
42 The watercolors were made for the Vladimir "Provincial Atlas" of 1801. Now they are stored in the Russian State Historical Archive, f. VUA. D. 18632. Tab. 2 and 4, and their copies are available in the Vladimir Museum. See about this: Proceedings of the Vladimir Scientific Archival Commission. Vladimir, 1906. T. VIII . Report. P. 12; Voronin N.N. Decree. Op. T. 1. P. 447. Fig. 212. pp. 455,553.
43 Aseev Yu.S.. Bogusevich V.A. Military defense system XII Vİku of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra: (Architectural and archaeological record of 1951) // Bulletin of the Academy of Architecture of the URSR. Kiev, 1951. No. 4. P. 43; Kilesso S.K. Kiev Pechersk Lavra: Monuments of architecture and art. M., 1975. S. 39 et seq.
44 Karger M.K. Decree. Op. T. 2. P 370; Rappoport P.A. Essays on the history of Russian military architecture X - XIII centuries // MIA USSR. 1956. No. 52. P. 126.
45 “Let us crowd the monastery of the garden” // Patericon of the Kyiv Pechersk Monastery. St. Petersburg, 1911. P. 13; see also: Karger M.K. Decree. Op. T. 2. P. 373.
46 Dates from the time of the abbess of Vasily (1182-1197) according to a message to him from Cyril of Turov: “You created stone walls around the entire Pecharsky monastery on a solid base, high and red” (Additions to the edition of the Works of the Holy Fathers. M., 1851. Part 10. C 348; see also: Karger M.K. Decree. Op. T. 2. P. 373; Rappoport P.A. Russian architecture X - XIII centuries P. 26.
47 Aseev Yu.S., Bogusevich V.A. Decree. Op. pp. 40-43; Bogusevich V.A. On the issue of fortress walls XII V. Kiev-Pechersk Monastery / /KSIA. Kyiv, 1959. Issue. 9. pp. 108-112.
48 This point of view was first expressed at the beginning XX V. Cm.: Muravyov M.V. Speech at XV archaeological congress on the report of T.N. Arne // Proceedings XV archaeological congress. St. Petersburg, 1909. T. 1. P. 115.
49 Karger M.K. Archaeological research of the RSFSR 1934-1936. M.; L., 1941. S. 22-24; Mongait A.L.. Defensive structures of Novgorod the Great // MIA USSR. M., 1952. No. 31. P. 30-32- Rappoport P.A. Essays on the history of military architecture of North-Eastern and North-Western Rus' X - XV centuries // MIA USSR. M.; L., 1961. No. 105. P. 202-203.
50 PSRL. T.V. C 241.
51 PSRL. T. VI . P. 211. For more information about this, see: Mongait AL. Decree. Op. pp. 30-32.
52 Kostochkin V.V. Russian defensive architecture of the end XIII - early XVI century. M., 1962. pp. 123-184.
53 Villinbakhov V.B.. Kirpichnikov A.N. On the issue of the appearance of firearms in Rus' // Collection of research and materials of the Artillery Historical Museum. L., 1958. Issue. 3. P. 258.
54 According to the chronicles, the Muscovites “Pushchakha” at the Tatars besieging the Kremlin “arrows, and throwing stones, and crossbows, and mattresses... shooting and hitting with stones, and straining crossbows, and vices, and mattresses; on them" (PSRL. T. XI . pp. 74, 75; see also: t. XXIII. P. 128; Vol. XXV. P. 208).
55 Engels F. Artillery // Marx K., Engels F. Soch. T. 14. P. 201.
56 For more information, see: Kostochkin V.V. Decree. Op. pp. 123-184.
57 It is significant that during construction in 1540-1550. the fortress walls of the monastery, the Holy Gate with the Church of Sergius were not included in the new fence system, and a special one was built in front of them for protection - the Red Tower.
58 PSRL. T. IV . P. 303; First-class Pskov-Pechersky Monastery. Island. 1893. P. 93; Malkov Yu.G. New materials on the history of the architectural ensemble of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery // Restoration and research of cultural monuments. M., 1982. Issue. 2. pp. 73-75, 81.
59 For measurement drawings of the tower and church, see: Rabinovich G. Architectural ensemble of the Pskov-Pechersky Monastery // AN. M., 1956. Sat. 6. pp. 70-79.
60 Grigoriev A. Kazan Kremlin. Kazan, 1969; Fechner M.. Great Bulgars: Kazan; Sviyazhsk M., 1978. P. 55-77. True, there is an opinion that the other passage towers of the Kremlin - Preobrazhenskaya, Nikolskaya and Dmitrievskaya - had gate churches (see: Dulsky P.M. Monuments of Kazan antiquity. Kazan. 1914. pp. 58-59). However, this is contradicted by the description of the city of 1566-1568, which directly indicates that these churches were wooden and stood not on the towers, but near them, side by side (see: Nevostruev K.I. List of scribe books for the city of Kazan and the district. Kazan, 1877. pp. 19-20, 21, 23).
61 cm .: List of scribe books for the city of Kazan with the district (1566 - 1568). Kazan, 1877. P. 19-20; Bogoslovsky M. Engineering-historical sketch of the siege of Kazan 7060-7061. (1552). St. Petersburg, 1898. Fig. 10, 13 and 14 and an explication to the drawing of 1771 under the letters “B” and “E”.
62 Suslov V.V. Monuments of ancient Russian architecture. St. Petersburg, 1901. Issue. VII . L. 13; Kalinin N.F. Spasskaya Tower of the Kazan Kremlin. Kazan, 1926.
63 The upper eights of the Spasskaya Tower and the tent belong to XVII century
64 Additions to historical acts. St. Petersburg, 1846. T. 1. P. 136.
65 Inventory of Novgorod September 20, 1675 // RGADA. Rank order, deeds of tithes. D. 280. L. 21-78. Published: Mongait A.L.. Defensive structures of Novgorod the Great. pp. 113-131.
66 Ibid. pp. 116, 118.
67 For its publication see: Gusev N.L.. Novgorod XVI V. based on the image on the Khutyn icon “The Vision of Sexton Tarasius” // Bulletin of Archeology and History. St. Petersburg, 1900. Issue. XIII. pp. 21-57.
68 For its publication see: Gusev P.L. Decree. Op. P. 16; Shkvarikov V.A. Urban planning. M., 1945. P. 116. Fig. 115; Bunin A.V., Savarenskaya T.F. History of urban planning art. M., 1979. T. 1. Fig. us. 227.
69 From the cathedral it went to the Novgorod Historical Museum, from where the frame depicting the city was stolen during the fascist occupation, and its current location is unknown. For its publication see: Gornostaev I.I. Plan of Novgorod on the icon of the Sign of the Mother of God in the Novgorod Znamensky Cathedral // News of the Archaeological Society. St. Petersburg, 1860. T. V . pp. 145-150; Mongait AL. Decree. Op. pp. 36-37. Rice. 9.
70 Now in the Novgorod Museum. For its publication see: Gusev P.L. Novgorod child as depicted on the icon of St. Michael’s Church // Bulletin of Archeology and History. St. Petersburg, 1914. Issue. XX II. pp. 46-82.
71 In comparison with the inventory of 1675, the only thing missing is the image of the gate temple at the Vladimir Tower, which is everywhere represented from the facade, and therefore the temple is simply not visible.
72 Mongait A.L. Decree. Op. From 35-38.61.
73 PSRL. T.VI. P. 36; T. XXX . pp. 152, 153; Novgorod Chronicles. St. Petersburg, 1879. pp. 59-61. The exact chronicle date for the completion of the construction of Detinets was established by V.L. Yanin. Cm.: Yanin V.L. About the duration of the construction of the Novgorod Kremlin at the end XV V. // SA. 1978. No. 1. P. 259-260.
74 PSRL. T. III. P. 244; T. IV. P. 160; T.VI. P. 36.
75 cm . reconstruction of Detinets 1484-1499, carried out by A.V. Vorobiev (Vorobiev A.V. Voevodsky courtyard in Novgorod // A.N. M., 1960. Sat. 14. Paste between p. 98 and 99). Nowadays, only two of these passage towers of the Detinets have survived - Spasskaya and Vladimirskaya, but their gate churches have been lost.
76 Mongait A.L. Decree. Op. pp. 33-35.
77 Ibid. P. 58.
78 PSRL. T.VI. P. 36.
79 Mongait A.L. Decree. Op. C 58; Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Novgorod Detinets 1044-1430. (based on new research) // AN. M., 1962. Sat. 14. pp. 23--24.
80 This is best judged by the architecture of the surviving towers: the passage towers - Spasskaya and Vladimirskaya and the blind towers - Knyazhaya, Dvortsovaya, Metropolitan and Fedorovskaya. See also: Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Decree. Op. P. 24; Aleshkovsky M.Kh., Vorobiev A.V. Novgorod Kremlin. L., 1972. S. 15-16, 20-21 et seq.
81 Mongait A.L. Decree. Op. pp. 14-35.
82 cm . more about this above, on p. 00.
83 At that time, the Fedorov Tower, which also had a gate temple (1233), was also a passage.
84 Gusev P.L. Novgorod child as depicted on the icon of St. Michael's Church. P. 51.
85 Aleshkovsky M.H.. Vorobiev A.V. Novgorod Kremlin. P. 22. It is necessary to point out that the authors considered gate churches mandatory for all ancient Russian kremlins, which does not correspond to the actual state of affairs.
86 Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Architecture and urban planning of Novgorod and Pskov as a source for studying their social history // Restoration and research of cultural monuments. M., 1975. Issue. 1. P. 27; see also: Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Stone guards. L., 1971. S. 88-89.
87 Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Novgorod Detinets 1044-1430. pp. 4-20.
88 Novgorod first chronicle of the older and younger editions. pp. 41-42; PSRL. T. III. P. 22.
89 See approx. 1-3 and 5-6.
90 "In the same summer (6741. - V.V.) a church was founded at the gate from the Nerevsky end of Saint Theodore" (First Novgorod Chronicle... P. 72; see also: P. 282; PSRL. T. III. P. 49).
91 For more information, see: Voronin N.N. Decree. Op. T. 1. pp. 446-457.
92 cm . about it: Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Novgorod Detinets 1044-1430. pp. 19 et seq.
93 "In the summer of 6804. Archbishop Clement of Novgorod erected the Church of the Stone of the Holy Resurrection on the gate." "In the summer of 6805... Hegumen Kirill of St. George erected the church of the stone of the Holy Transfiguration on the gate from the end of the People." "In the summer of 6813. Semyon Klimovich built a stone church on the gate from Prusskaya Street." "That same summer (6819. - V.V.) Archbishop Davyd built a stone church on the gate from the Nerevsky end of St. Volodymyr" (Novgorod First Chronicle... P. 328, 92,93).
94 The chronicles say nothing about the construction of travel towers, but the mention of gates in reports of the construction of temples clearly suggests their previous construction.
95 Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Novgorod Detinets 1044-1430. pp. 19-21.
96 Ibid. pp. 21-24.
97 "That same summer (6897. - V.V.) Gregory Posadnik Yakunovich erected the Church of the Stone Protection of the Holy Mother of God on the gate." "In the summer of 6906... Archbishop of Novgorod Vladyka John erected the Church of the Stone of the Holy Resurrection on the gate and the sanctuary itself, with the priest and with the choir of St. Sophia." "In the summer of 6934. The church of the Holy Savior was completed at the gates of the city, in the Kamenny Dentinets city" (Novgorod First Chronicle... P. 383, 393; Novgorod Chronicle. St. Petersburg, 1879. P. 268).
98 Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Novgorod Detinets 1044-1430. pp. 19.24.
99 The list of Novgorod churches, compiled shortly after the completion of the new Detinets, lists the following gate churches: Vladimir, Resurrection, Intercession, Deposition of the Robe and Transfiguration. Cm.: Nikolsky A. Description of the seven Novgorod cathedrals according to the list XVI V. St. Petersburg Library of the Holy Synod // Bulletin of Archeology and History. St. Petersburg, 1898. Issue. X . P. 79; see also: Yanin VL."Seven Cathedral Painting" of Novgorod // Medieval Rus'. M., 1976. S. 111-112.
100 Aleshkovsky M.Kh. Novgorod Detinets 1044-1430. P. 19.
101 Ibid.
102 Statement by S.A. Vysotsky (see: Vysotsky S.A. Golden Gate in Kyiv. C 16) that gate temples were found, albeit rarely, in Byzantine architecture is erroneous. In reality, Byzantium did not know such temples.
103 Sagaidak M.A. The great city of Yaroslav. Kyiv, 1982. P. 26.
104 Pavel Alepsky. XVII century M., 1900. Issue. IV. WITH . 55.
105 Reallexikon zur byzantinischen Kunst. Stuttgart. 1928. In d. IV. S. 107-108.
106 Ibid.
107 Porfiry (Uspensky). The first trip to the Athos monasteries and monasteries in 1845. Kyiv, 1877. Ch. I, dept. 1. pp. 189, 221.
108 Prashkov L.. Khrelovata kula.. Sofia, 1973. P. 9-17.
109 Kondakov N.P. Monuments of Christian art on Mount Athos. St. Petersburg, 1902. P. 29.
110 Right there. P. 29. See also about this: Petkovich S. Hilandar. Beograd, 1989. pp. 20-25, 50-55, 62-64.
111 Kondakov N.P. Decree. Op. pp. 29, 131.
1 "2"... for the sake of frequent services and commemorations of souls inscribed in the monastery books for the alms given... for the sake of early liturgies and short solitary prayers" etc. (see: Grigorovich-Barsky V.G. Wanderings through the holy places of the East from 1723 to 1747. St. Petersburg, 1887. Ch. III. P. 13).
113 Sergius (Spassky), archim. Iveron holy and miraculous icon of the Mother of God on Mount Athos and copies of it in Russia. M., 1879. P. 3-17.
114 Right there. pp. 8-9; see also: Porfiry (Uspensky). New word about the Athos Icon of the Mother of God // CHOIDR. 1879. March. Dept. 1. pp. 383-385; Sergius (Spassky), archim. Iveron Icon of the Mother of God on Mount Athos // CHOIDR. 1880. June. Dept. 1. pp. 651-658.
115 Pavel Alepsky. The journey of the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius to Russia in half XVII century // Issue. IV. P. 55.
116 Historical dictionary about saints glorified in the Russian church, and about some ascetics of piety, locally revered. M., 1991. P. 24.
117 Sergius (Spassky), archim. Iveron holy and miraculous icon of the Mother of God on Mount Athos and copies of it in Russia. P. 82.
118 Porfiry (Uspensky). A new word about the Athos Icon of the Mother of God. P. 383.
119 Sergius (Spassky), archim. Decree. Op. P. 12.
120 Right there. P. 13; Porfiry (Uspensky). A new word about the Athos Icon of the Mother of God. WITH. 386.
121 Strzygowsci J. Das Goldene Tor in Konstantinopol // Jahrbuch das deutschen archäologischen Institut. Berlin, 1893. IN d. VIII. S. 1-39; Meyer-Plath B. Das Goldene Tor in Konstantinopol//Mnemosyon Theodor Wiegand. München, 1938. S. 87-98.
122 It is significant that the Golden Gate existed in a number of Christian cities of the Middle Ages, including Jerusalem, Trier, Split, etc. But none of them copied their Constantinople prototype.
123 For more information, see: Vygolov V.P. Sculpture of George on the tower of the Moscow Kremlin // Monuments of Russian architecture and monumental art: Cities, ensembles, architects. M., 1985. P. 18-22.
124 In the Resurrection Chronicle, under 6659, Prince Vyacheslav, “looking at the image of the Holy Mother of God, written on the Golden Gate, spoke...” (PSRL. T. VII. P. 53).
125 Rozov N.N. Synodal list of works by Hilarion, a Russian writer XI century // Slavia, roc. XXXII, ses 2. Praha, 1963. pp. 147-148.
126 Hilarion. A Word about Law and Grace // Slavia. roc. XXXII, ses. 2. Praha, 1963. R. 152-175.
127 Ibid.
128 According to the fair words of D.S. Likhachev, “the Church of the Annunciation is not only an honor to God and Vladimir, but also an honor to all the citizens of Kyiv. Art... serves man, “gives him honor,” glorifies him and elevates him” (Monuments of the literature of Ancient Rus': The beginning of Russian literature. XI - early XII centuries. M., 1978. P.9).
129 Monuments of Old Russian Church Literature / Ed. A.I. Ponomareva. St. Petersburg, 1894. Issue. 1. pp. 74-75; see also: The Tale of Bygone Years: (Historical and literary essay by D.S. Likhachev) // The Tale of Bygone Years. M.; L., 1950. Part 2. P. 74.
130 Rozov N.N. Decree. Op.
131 History of Russian literature. M.; L., 1958. T. 1. P. 42.
TO THE MAIN PAGE OF THE SITE
All library materials are protected by copyright and are the intellectual property of their authors.
All library materials are obtained from publicly available sources or directly from their authors.
Placing materials in the library is their citation in order to ensure the safety and accessibility of scientific information, and not reprinting or reproduction in any other form.
Any use of library materials without reference to their authors, sources and library is prohibited.
The use of library materials for commercial purposes is prohibited.
Founder and curator of the RusArch library,
Academician of the Russian Academy of Arts
Conversation with an employee of the Kiev-Pechersk Historical and Cultural Reserve, Candidate of Historical Sciences Konstantin Krainy.
Acquaintance with the Lavra complex traditionally begins with the Trinity Church, standing above the Holy Gates of the Lavra.
Trinity Gate Church. Holy Gates of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra
Important historical events are associated with this ancient temple, but at the same time, over the nine centuries of its existence, many legends have appeared, not all of which are confirmed by real facts. They say, for example, that it was founded by the famous Pechersk ascetic saint Nikolay Svyatosha.
[Nikola Svyatosha, in the world Svyatoslav Davidovich († 10/14/1143), son of the Chernigov prince David Svyatoslavich, great-grandson of the Kyiv prince Yaroslav the Wise. In 1099–1100 - Prince Lutsk. He took part in the princely internecine wars, as a result of which he lost his inheritance. Soon after this, to the surprise and some embarrassment of his relatives, he decided to leave the bustle of the world and in 1107 took monastic vows at the Kiev Pechersk Monastery, becoming the first monastic prince in Rus'. He worked in the cellar and was a monastery gatekeeper. It is believed that the books that belonged to Nikola Svyatosha laid the foundation for the monastery library. Buried in the Near Caves of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, canonized as a saint, commemorated on September 28 and October 14]
– Why is the Trinity Church one way or another associated with St. Nikola?
– This is a fairly old tradition. Throughout the 19th century, the Lavra printing house published many guidebooks and popular books, where the creation of the Trinity Church was unconditionally attributed to St. Nicole. At the same time, in order to provide a colorful description of the image of the monk prince, the authors increasingly deviated from the truth. For example, in one of the publications of the late 19th century I had a chance to read the following lines:
Prince Nikola of Chernigov
Demonstrated holiness of spirit:
He abdicated the throne
And he lived in a dark cave.
And with it for the sick,
He arranged for a doctor's office,
He did many good deeds,
He calmed widows and orphans.
To the glory of the Most Holy Trinity,
He created a temple above the gates
And abhorring vanity,
I glorified the Lord with my deeds...
The above poem contains several misconceptions: first, Svyatosha was not the Prince of Chernigov - this title was borne by his brother and father, but not by him.
St. Nikola Svyatosha. antique engraving
– That is, he was not the ruling prince of the Chernigov house?
– Svyatoslav Davydovich was the eldest son and, perhaps, would eventually take the princely throne. But much earlier than this, he took monastic vows. He was the heir, but not the Prince of Chernigov. Further, Nikola Svyatosha did not live in the Lavra caves - by the time of his arrival they were mainly used as the resting place of the brethren. There is also a lot that is unclear about the issue of setting up a hospital for him - in the Pechersk Patericon the words of the monk are quoted that he himself does not take any medicine and advises others, in particular the Syrian doctor Peter, to be healed by prayer. The saint, having taken monastic vows at the Kiev-Pechersk monastery, actually served for some time as a gatekeeper at the Holy Gates, but there is not a single mention in the chronicle or the Pechersk Patericon that he built the Trinity Gate Church. The first mention of the church and information that it was built by Nikola Svyatosha is found in “Teraturgim” by Afanasy Kalnofoisky, published in 1638. Before this, there is no information about her. Therefore, some researchers in the 19th century, for example, Nikolai Zakrevsky, argued that the temple was built later, most likely by one of the Olelkovich princes.
– This is already the 15th century, that is, not the time of St. Nicholas...
– Yes, but I want to draw attention to the fact that in this case the established tradition has not strayed far from the truth - the antiquity of the Trinity Church was confirmed by Nikolai Zakrevsky’s contemporary, KDA professor Pyotr Lashkarev, who back in 1869, at the First Archaeological Congress, proved that under the later Baroque modeling the temple retained its ancient Russian forms. Comparing the Trinity Gate Church with the Suzdal churches, the construction of which dated back to the 12th century, he pointed out their similarities, while everything indicated that it was the Lavra church that became the model for the latter. Indeed, in 1881, when the plaster was removed from the outer walls of the church, ancient Russian masonry was discovered underneath. Thus, we can say with confidence that the construction of this temple dates back to the times of Kievan Rus. However, it is quite difficult to accurately determine the time of its construction. It could have been erected both at the beginning of the 12th century, as P. A. Lashkarev believed, and at the end, when major construction work was taking place in the monastery, the upper territory of the Lavra was surrounded by a powerful fortress wall, about 6 m high and 2 m thick...
– What is the fate of this wall?
– It was destroyed during or immediately after the Mongol attack on Kyiv in 1240. After this, for more than four hundred years, the monastery was surrounded only by a wooden fence. At the turn of the 17th–18th centuries, at the expense of Hetman Ivan Mazepa, the current fortress walls were erected, which surrounded the territory of the Upper Lavra with a total area of about 10 hectares. Their length is more than one kilometer...
Church of St. Nicholas
But let’s return to the courtyard near the entrance to the Trinity Gate Church. We are in a quiet, shady courtyard, where excursions around the Lavra traditionally begin. In addition to the Trinity Church, there are several other notable monuments here, in particular, the temple in the name of St. Nicholas. Once upon a time, this entire territory was separated from the rest of the Lavra and there was a separate Trinity Hospital Monastery here, with its own abbot, although subordinate to the Lavra archimandrite. Sometimes this monastery is called Nikolskaya, but until the very end of the 18th century in documents it was called Trinity, since its main church was the Trinity Gate Church. After the secularization reform of 1786, the monastery was abolished and transformed into a fraternal hospital, the main church of which was Nikolsky. And more out of habit, this territory was called the Hospital Monastery in the 19th century, only now - Nikolsky...
As with the issue of dating the construction of the Trinity Church, there is much uncertainty about when the Hospital Monastery was founded and the original St. Nicholas Church was erected. The first reliable evidence of the Hospital Monastery dates back to the 16th century. The date sometimes mentioned in the literature - 1462, as well as the connection of this monastery with the writing of the second edition of Cassian's "Kievo-Pechersk Patericon" is not confirmed by modern researchers. The current St. Nicholas Church was built at the end of the 17th century. His style coincides with the so-called early “Mazepa” baroque.
If we talk about the history of the Trinity Hospital Monastery, it is impossible not to mention such a remarkable event as the creation of St. Peter Mogila in 1631 of the Lavra Collegium. At the same time, most likely, when establishing his school on this place, the saint first of all paid attention to its isolation from the rest of the monastery - nothing should distract students from studying science.
– Isn’t there enough room for a collegium?
– For an educational institution designed for several dozen people, this is quite enough. And it was decided to move the monastery to a courtyard on the south side of the Trinity Church. However, the Lavra Collegium existed for only a year, and already in 1632 it was merged with the fraternal school in Podol. The brothers and Cossacks suspected something was wrong in the closed school of Peter Mogila - he was even accused of wanting to create some kind of Jesuit college. The fact is that many subjects here were read in Latin, Western European treatises were studied - Peter Mogila understood that in the fight against Catholics and Uniates, the Orthodox must be armed with the most advanced knowledge. Because in this struggle the main thing was the pen - a well-written treatise, in its impact, was sometimes much more effective than any violent measures. Still, in the 17th century our lands were quite enlightened.
***
Trinity Gate Church. Exterior decoration
But let's return to Trinity Church. Here we are in front of a temple decorated with baroque stucco, the paintings on the walls are from the beginning of the twentieth century, but the walls themselves date back to the times of Kievan Rus. This is the only above-ground temple of the Lavra, which over the eight centuries of its existence was practically not destroyed - there were small additions, its appearance changed, but overall its fate was happier than that of other ancient buildings of the Lavra. Neither the earthquake of 1230, nor the Mongol attack, nor the more brutal raid of Mengli-Girey affected the Trinity Gate Church. Even the terrible fire of 1718, which practically destroyed the Upper Lavra (only charred walls remained of the Great Lavra Church - the Assumption Cathedral) did not affect it. But after this fire, a major reconstruction of the Lavra begins. At this time, the Trinity Church receives its baroque design both outside and inside - I invite you to look into the temple to examine the most interesting paintings of the “Ukrainian Baroque” period, which once decorated the interiors of all Lavra churches, and now are preserved only here.
Gate Church of Theodore Stratilates
Above the western holy gates of the monastery, on the side of the Seraya River, is the Church of the Holy Great Martyr Theodore Stratilates.
The temple was consecrated in honor of the heavenly patron saint of the monastery, Tsar Fyodor Alekseevich (1676-1682), and was built in the last year of his life. This was evidenced by the inscription in the iconostasis above the image of the Savior: “Heavenly Tsar, strengthen our blessed Tsar and Grand Duke Fyodor Alekseevich, establish faith, pacify the world and preserve this holy monastery for good.” The first linen antimension of the church, sent from Moscow, was consecrated on May 15, 1682, after the death of the Blessed Sovereign († April 27, 1682). Nor did its builder, Elder Cornelius († August 11, 1681), live to see the consecration of the church. In memory of him, on the southern deacon's door was painted the image of the martyr Archdeacon Euplaus - the saint on whose memory day Father Cornelius reposed in the Lord.
The temple, located above the holy gate, is included in the western part of the monastery’s brick fence. The central part of the temple is highlighted by a high volume compared to the northern and southern porches, each topped with a drum with a dome and a cross. The eastern façade of the church, facing the monastery, is decorated with windows with flaming frames and a tier of zakomaras over its elevated part. The western facade from the river side is completely different: it has narrow high loophole windows and is highlighted, repeating the decor of the walls, with a light arcature belt, characteristic of the architectural monuments of Vladimir-Suzdal Rus'. In the interior, each part of the temple is covered with vaults with metal connections, the central part rises by 2 steps, the floor in the temple was brick.
A white stone platform was built near the holy gates to the west. In the central arch there are folding wooden gates, over which there are paintings: “the image of the Lord Pantocrator with the Mother of God and John the Baptist and the Apostles standing, on the gates the Last Judgment is painted, and on the right and left sides of the walls the archangels Michael and Gabriel are written” (inventory 1764). There are two walk-through gates in the side arches. At the beginning of the 19th century, the southern arch, in which the staircase leading to the temple was also located, was laid down, the temple on the western side was strengthened with two buttresses, and, as in all churches of the monastery, the plank roof was replaced with an iron one, and the mica windows with glass.
At the entrance to the temple, in the recess of the fence, since the 17th century, in the icon case, there was the miraculous Kazan Icon of the Mother of God, in front of which an unquenchable lamp burned.
In 1923, the gate temple was closed. During the revival of the monastery in 1992, it was returned to the monastery. After restoration work and the installation of a new iconostasis, the Theodore Church was re-consecrated in 1993. Now nightly Liturgies, confessions and tonsures of monastics are performed there.
At the same time, a stone love cell was built next to the holy gate, as it was called - “guard tent”. The Monk Cornelius lived in it for some time. And then, having moved to a house outside the walls of the monastery, he came here to listen to the needs of the sisters and for spiritual conversation with them. Later, nuns-gatekeepers lived in this cell. Now the memorial cell of St. Cornelius has been restored, at its entrance there is a small exhibition on the history of the monastery.
488An experimental excursion is being launched at the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, which tells about the daily life of the monks. As part of the new excursion route, visitors will be shown the modern life of the monastery, restored churches and a photo exhibition dedicated to the life of the brethren.
“For most tourists and pilgrims, visiting the Lavra is limited to our main shrine - the relics of Alexander Nevsky, so we decided to fill this gap with a new unique excursion,” Hierodeacon Mark (Biryukov), head of the pilgrimage center, told Metro.
Metropolitan Barsanuphius, co-served by the vicar of the Lavra, Bishop Nazariy of Kronstadt, the secretary of the diocesan administration, Archpriest Sergius Kuksevich, the keymaster of the church, Hieromonk Macarius (Denisov), and the brethren of the monastery, led the first Divine Liturgy in the newly consecrated church.
During the service, Bishop Barsanuphius ordained deacon of the Church of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul in Pargolovo, Sergius Chechanichev, as a presbyter of the same church, and subdeacon Anthony Marushchak as a deacon of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra.
